We haven't decided what to do about Pro yet.
Things will be changing....but the precise details haven't yet been decided.
If we do keep a Pro version, then I expect that we will still honor previous purchases.
But don't quote me on that, because as I said, it's all still undecided.
There's a few things that need replacing first....

Whatever changes are made to the player itself I hope the ability to at least install a desktop version with the classic skin remains. Call me a dinosaur or fossil but it's all I've ever used because it does the job perfectly.

And please take a look at the direct show sticking problem in Windows 7 when minimizing then maximizing Winamp with videos running. I can't be the only one who has that issue although I seem to be the only one complaining. :_).

I doubt you'll see existing skin support dropped, though I know for one I'd like to see a native OS option as skinning is one of the main causes of memory bloat that gets leveraged at us. but who knows what the future will bring for Winamp as a whole.

I'm not seeing anything obvious in your posts about the other thing you mention, though no one really uses Winamp for video anyway so thats probably why ☺ if anything, I bet video support could be dropped without too many complaints... which would solve a number of licensing issues....

Well I use Winamp all of the time for videos, for me it in combination with FFDShow is superior to VLC. Especially certain codecs like Ogg videos play so much better.

Media Player Classic uses FFDShow codecs I think, or at least they did but it doesn't have the preference options that Winamp has. Can you go back or forward five or ten seconds, as I recall that wasn't possible but that was a few years ago. Same with WMP. I'd hate to see Winamp drop video support then I'd definitely have to stay on the current version.

I install MPC via K++ mega codec pack, so yeah it uses those. The main reason I don't use winamp for video is because if I want to watch a video I would lose my current playlist on my winamp... drove me insane. Anyway, MPC is small, simple, light, and reminds me of the WMP 6.4 days

zepper: the thing is, Winamp is just a lot better at audio than video (which was a hack in the first place) and based on feedback, that's generally what people seem to use.

i'm not saying that it'll be dropped, though maybe a clearer way to disable video support completely for people would help for those who don't want it to do video at all. hence the start of a means to do that with the last 5.66x release, but something during install / runtime to enable / disable it as a whole would be of use i think (though i suspect people will still call it bloat, but you can never win).

as we're unlikely to drop existing features (though the implementation is likely to change for a number of things) unless we just cannot justify licensing to use something or it's going to take to much for the time being to re-implement.

musicf8: lose the current playlist? do you mean that it's hidden or the altering of the contents (if the altering of the contents then that will happen irrespective of any format, audio or video).

musicf8: lose the current playlist? do you mean that it's hidden or the altering of the contents (if the altering of the contents then that will happen irrespective of any format, audio or video).

Losing the active playlist (like having a playlist full of songs to listen to, then clicking on a video file and all of them vanish with just the video file). That's why I prefer having a program for video files separate than music files. I tend to pause music a lot to watch a video and then resume listening to the playlist after.

Of course the last time I used winamp for video was when it first debuted with video capabilities, didn't like using one program for all media, and just made winamp my dedicated music player.

Losing the active playlist (like having a playlist full of songs to listen to, then clicking on a video file and all of them vanish with just the video file).

what you're describing is what happens irrespective of the file format if you've got things set to play instead of enqueue by default. as i can do that with a flac file or a sid file or anything else

Quote:

Originally Posted by musicf8

That's why I prefer having a program for video files separate than music files. I tend to pause music a lot to watch a video and then resume listening to the playlist after.

alternatively you could have a second Winamp instance configured as needed, though it sounds like even with the improvements that were made over the v2.9x implementation, that Winamp + video is not right for you anyway.

Sometimes "current use" doesn't let you see what the potential of "another use" is. For example, here in my country, YouTube is a popular streaming service, Soundcloud and such are not. And Winamp was a popular mp3 player, but at parties / gatherings many people left Winamp and began to use Youtube playlists, sometimes leaving others to pick the next song or artist and building the listing as it plays..

Most of the times the selected song didn't have a video (just that still-images videos), but that didn't care since the fun part was to pick ANY song "I can think of", without being restricted to what "Winamp can play" or "which mp3 you have in this PC".

What I mean is that, leaving video playback out of Winamp is not understanding how new techonology and habits change / transform, in any case, EXTENDING the current way of using it can be a better path IMHO. Expanding options so you have more ways to interact with music (and so, more means to find a way that suits your current habits).

Anyway, all I say / think can be totally in vain since Radionomy is not precisely a "media content" focused company, it is a "radios" company. So videos and even local music libraries won't be the focus anymore.. (I hope I'm wrong of course, I hope they surprise us in a way I can`t even imagine..)

What I mean is that, leaving video playback out of Winamp is not understanding how new techonology and habits change / transform, in any case, EXTENDING the current way of using it can be a better path IMHO.

good point, but Winamp's strength is audio and as you note, Radionomy is more about audio/streaming than video. so based on that, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on what Winamp and related services are good at and do the best for them than trying to be a tool that fits everything and doesn't do well (as has been the case especially with Winamp + video).

sure it'd be nice to have something done about the video support, but video is more of a nightmare than audio is for licensing, etc (e.g. h264 was pro only due to licensing) that maybe it's better (to allow Winamp to continue to be free) to drop things that otherwise hold things back and / or have to be crippled on purpose due to draconian restrictions.

and like i said, most likely the most that'll be seen is a better way to switch off video support for those who just don't want / need it and give them something more akin to v2.x (once you get around the fact that a lot of users now just don't even know you can change the skin, etc).

anyway, no one really knows what's going to happen (not even me) and i'm just putting out a few ideas to see at least what the forum (and it's reality bubble) thinks.

I doubt you'll see existing skin support dropped, though I know for one I'd like to see a native OS option as skinning is one of the main causes of memory bloat that gets leveraged at us. but who knows what the future will bring for Winamp as a whole.

I'm not seeing anything obvious in your posts about the other thing you mention, though no one really uses Winamp for video anyway so thats probably why ☺ if anything, I bet video support could be dropped without too many complaints... which would solve a number of licensing issues....

.. you do realize you can get a 16 gig kit for under 100 if your really cheap or around 130-150 if you want a bit better performance XD.

i think we have evolved beyond the point where the minor amount of memory bloat by a skinning utility can cause a noticeable performance drop

true but people want things to be slim and the less resources a skin (and winamp in general) uses then generally the faster everything will be. it also means more memory available for library data if less is used for graphics data.

so yes it could be ignored but keeping things slim can have other benefits plus memory usage is just one of those metrics that people can see and they base things on (even though growing libraries over a decade is often the reason for newer Winamp releases to seem worse because it knows and stores a lot more library data than 2.9x did).

but if everything else on the machine just doesn't bother about such things, its very easy to run out of 16Gb of ram before you know it

true but people want things to be slim and the less resources a skin (and winamp in general) uses then generally the faster everything will be. it also means more memory available for library data if less is used for graphics data.

Turning Winamp into a 64-bit multi-threaded app will allow for more memory usage and may improve performance too.

People will always complain about something. The amount of resources Winamp uses may have been an issue 10 years ago, it is a drop in the bucket for even the cheapest hardware available now.

there's already multi-threading in things (just not for the features people want it on) and yes going 64-bit would alleviate the main bulk of memory issues once code is fixed up to cope fully with 64-bit pointers.

but the only real issue with being 32-bit as-is for memory is that for very large libraries / lots of artwork, we just run out of continuous memory blocks for things - which going all 64-bit would resolve, but only because there's a lot more 'empty' space which can be allocated, it still wouldn't help with the obvious memory fragmentation issue within the process.

and i'm only talking about memory at the moment since it's an obvious metric people can understand and being a bit more sensible about it's usage with how Winamp already is can have benefits (performance and stability). just like was already started with the 5.64-5.66x releases for the non-Cloud parts as better memory handling of xml files gave us a decent reduction in loading time for modern skins on what i was able to test.

plus if it's seen to be lighter again on such things, then maybe (i know it's unlikely) we'll see people who keep using the old versions will consider and try upgrading to a newer version (as without people using newer versions when they do come out, there's no point in having a dev team as what's the point in paying people to work on something that isn't being used).

and despite what is now possible with hardware, small and tight implementations are what should be strived for (within reason) as we've seen with continued XP usage and so on anyway, i'm rambling now and not coding, so i'll shut up now.

I really hope Radionomy makes SHOUTcast become like their own service or TuneIn, thats already how their current service works after i tried it recently, even better than Spotify tbh! Things are so simple and streamlined. No client, no browser extensions etc.. Just click play and it works in your browser, no playlist needed to be downloaded even I Hope this is the future for SHOUTcast, SHOUTcast seems to be in good hands after all

Will Radionomy merge their own streaming service with SHOUTcast? It seems weird for them to support two almost exactly the same products at the same time, if so who's brand name is planned to be used? SHOUTcast's? I gotta admit before the Winamp purchase ive never heard of Radionomy, the only site of its kind that i knew of was TuneIn

(Sorry if this is posting twice, first time it told me it needs to await moderation... even tho my post from a few weeks ago didnt give me that message..)

Hi, currently the site uploadgeneration.info, where a mirror is present, is down for (false) abuse report. We hope to solve the problem with the provider otherwise we will move to another service provider soon.

I read a while back that WinAmp was going away so I haven't been using it. Now I read that a new web site and a ne version is coming soon?? Very cool.. Come on WinAmp. Kick some butt. I hate I-Tunes and Windows Media Player is boring. VLC has horrible interface.. So we wait for you!

because it was never on the official development todo list and people didn't care enough when i personally offered to do it in 2010 (which i offered to do for a very small fee [compared to what it would realistically cost at the time] before things like the kickstarter phenomenon took hold on the web which would have been ideal at the time, but that time has now long since passed).

Heres a question no ones seemed to bother to ask even though it should be the first thing to ask; What is Radionomy's vision for Winamp exactly?

A) Stay as is, going on with the incremental updates to the Winamp 5.xx family, as if nothings happened but with AOL branding removed and replaced with Radionomy branding

B) Change it into one of those annoying cloud player thingies and hook it to their internet radio service

C) A whole new breed of Winamp 6.xx (skip directly to 7.xx maybe? since Winamp 5 and Winamp 2 are the most popular versions... and in Nullsoft tradition it would make sense somewhat just since they did something similar when naming version 5..) That ditches the messy plugin and skins system and incorporates most of their functions in its core

D) Same as A), but simply to maintain it until someday its eventually discontinued and nothing but SHOUTcast is left as a web player

Time will tell on that one... Hooking it in to their internet radio service is probably a given, but I don't think it'll just be one of those irritating cloud players. One Spotify is enough for us all.

Anybody have a link to an older but recent version of 5 around? 666 does some weird things on my laptop, like double click to queue does this thing with track positioning giving them numbers next to the track time and I have to Alt-click to undo that... or sometimes it starts up a bunch of other Winamp sessions, ignoring the "don't allow multiple sessions" setting that has been set to "hell no" since install many years ago. 622 works fine on my server, as it had for years, but silly me, I had to install the "final" version when the death happened. (I think even 665 was fine IIRC.)

622 works fine on my server, as it had for years, but silly me, I had to install the "final" version when the death happened. (I think even 665 was fine IIRC.)

Since you have not been keeping up with the Winamp updates, it appears that the latest version with the Jump To File Extra plug-in installed has changed the behavior you are used to. JTFE adds the ability to "enqueue and play" to the core "enqueue" (add to playlist contents) or "play" (replace playlist contents) functions. JTFE also adds the ability to add (enqueue) the file(s) to the playlist or to the queue within the playlist. Files added to the queue within the playlist can subsequently be managed by the "Queue Manager".

Sounds like you are adding files to the queue within the playlist, instead of to the playlist itself.

Anyway, all the 'new' behavior can be controlled by options in the General Preferences. Files can be added from Windows Explorer or the Winamp media library, so check all the following GP options to select the behavior you want. Look in the File Types tab; File Types - Shell Options tab; all the Jump To File associated tabs; and the Media Library Options tab.

There may be a few more related options (Winamp has so many), but I think those indicated above should let you control what happens when you double click a file in Windows Explorer or the Winamp media library.

It may be a good idea to look at all the latest GP options to update yourself on what's new or changed.

What I'd really like in WinAMP is an easy, integrated way to stream music to other computers/devices, so all I have to do, say, is install WinAMP on a machine, tell it to look for my home PC, and wham, there's my music, ready to listen to.